There are 2 predominant texts of the LXX, BOTH were used by the early church fathers who commented on Daniel occassionally. Using the one without articles is a preference, not a dictate. Personally, I used both while looking at the lexical data to support my partial translation. You would do well to heed the words of Augustine quoted in the preface to the KJV. He said (my terrible paraphrase from memory) "its best to use a multiple of translations because you could get the wrong sense by committing to just one."
Augustine said many things that are good (and some far out). Your terrible paraphrase of him is fine: and I follow that all the time. My library has 29 versions of the Bible, and while I don't pull everyone out all the time to check how they translate or interpret the manuscripts, I seldom don't check a few when writing articles. That is a good practice that more should follow - congratulation are due to you!
There are 2 predominant texts of the LXX, BOTH were used by the early church fathers who commented on Daniel occassionally. Using the one without articles is a preference, not a dictate. Personally, I used both while looking at the lexical data to support my partial translation.
Okay, not bad. I do similarly. I have access to quite a few texts of the Old and New Testament books. The list of varients I have on the manuscripts are way to large to look at each and every one all the time. So, I have to pick and choose, maybe missing one that someone else may comment on. O'well, what will be wil be, as the saying goes. If you ever have the chance, visit the library in London, England: it has the largest collection of manuscripts that I've ever seen - although the Vatican library claims much more.